Canalon wrote(i.e. lions and tiger can cross breed, but simply don't because they do not share the same habitat)....Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty withoutany proof. (Ashley Montague)

Yes they can cross breed, but they wouldn't, and its not just because they don't share the same habitat. They are instinctively territorial. Animals within the same family, genus or species school, flock, pack or stay together, and breed together except in rare cases.

I corrected the attribution for you... No they do cross breed in captivity. And I remember you that the sex drive is strong in many animals and some (usually males ) have been seen trying to mate with many things way out of their flock or even family (even dead and inanimate objects).

AFJ wrote:Since you seem to think creationists don't have any proof or know anything at all,you ought to know. Creationists acknowledge Darwin's discoveries, and left species fixity behind--that was err--just like evolutionists have left many of their hypotheses behind--because of new research. Have you ever listened to a creationist with a Ph. D. or read any of of their papers? Many of them have published papers in science journals-in non-Darwinian subjects. I have a friend who is a chemical engineer who is creationist. My pastor is a retired M.D. and is a creationist. Issac Newton and Edward Blythe (whom Darwin read) were creationists. There are more of us than you think.

Just one more thing and I'll stop venting (this is nothing personal-lol). PROOF is the wrong word in your quote there--because if science had proof--they would be CERTAIN. Science has EVIDENCE and scientists interpret the evidence. Not all of them interpret the evidence the same way--even those in the same camp.

Well for I. Newton and and E. Blythe, it would be hard to fault them not to have supported a theory that was offered after their death wouldn't it? And since creationism was all that was available at the time, I do not think that their beliefs are relevant. As for your pastor, you would still need to convince me that M.D. are scientist (even the use of Doctor is an abuse of language, but that is another story).I have read some papers by creationist with Ph.D. yes. Some do good science because they simply do not deal with evolution, which is fine by me. Some try to disprove evolution, and it is usually not that good (see M. Behe for example). What is funny, or sad, or both, is indeed the double standard applied in creationist science: They want evidence (you are right A. Montague was wrong, scientist have evidences and fact, and no proofs, but accuracy should not always go in the way of a 'bon mot'), but simply use absence of evidence as the main base for the evidence of creation... That said many scientist that are very competent in their specific domain have really outlandish ideas for some other things. They are just human beings after all. We all wish we were rational, and then you turn on TV and you know that as a species we have failed to prove that we even come close to rationality

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

AFJ wrote:kolean wrote(i.e. lions and tiger can cross breed, but simply don't because they do not share the same habitat)....Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty withoutany proof. (Ashley Montague)

I did not say this.

Another analogy would be apples and pears. They usually don't come from the same tree, but botanists have grafted trees that can bear different fruit (classification of species would be the root stock genotype though). We just don't do that with animal embryos, cause we legally can't do that. Sigh. We let nature do it though. Nature gets all the fun. I would love to mix an egg from a lion/tiger with the sperm from a tiger/lion. Thus a new species? Would love to look at the genome of that, and see what different genotype produces what phenotype expressions. Though a tiger and a lion might be dull in second thought. They are both big cat mammals. Something a little more exotic perhaps. . . . .

canalon wrote:Well for I. Newton and and E. Blythe, it would be hard to fault them not to have supported a theory that was offered after their death wouldn't it? And since creationism was all that was available at the time, I do not think that their beliefs are relevant.

Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck, usually known as Lamarck, (1 August 1744 – 18 December 1829) was a French soldier, naturalist, academic and an early proponent of the idea that evolution occurred and proceeded in accordance with natural laws. Wikipedia

Evolutionary theory was around when Blythe wrote his material that Darwin supposedly took on his voyage. Lamarckian evolution did not incorporate natural selection, La Marck taught that aquired traits were passed onto offspring, which was later discredited.

Also James Hutton, James Playfair, and others had already promoted uniformintarianism (old earth) before Blythe came along.

canalon wrote:but simply use absence of evidence as the main base for the evidence of creation

Not absence of evidence as much as arguing the interpretation of the evidence. For instance, evolutionists interpret similar genetic material in different families of organisms or even orders as though it is proof of common ancestry. That evidence can also be put into a creation model--it would be logical that the closer the phenotype the closer the genotype. Since genes guide phenotype, it makes sense that more common genes would be in similar phenotypes. It would also seem logical that most eukaryotes should have a certain amount of common genetic material, since they are all organic, whether a banana or a dog.

As far as MDs chemical engineers, high school science teachers,and the like who do not shape modern science--they can interpret what is being written in research and should be respected as having an educated opinion. They can afford to dissent, because they aren't as concerned about their reputation or career (or a government research grant) in science.

So the idea of species is not well defined. So what? It's better than nothing, and no real scientist would adhere fanatically to what they are taught. No real scientist would throw the baby out with the bath water either, and declare all the attempts to organize our knowledge as nonsense.

PS - in sexual reproduction you can have A able to interbreed with B, B with C but A not with C, so interbreedability is not a good definition of species.

The phyla group animals into anatomically similar creatures, correct? Then I would say that the system is working rather effectively, as they are ordered in a way that makes sense and most of the animals within a phylum share certain characteristics and developments.

A species of animal is an animal that has become so diverse from the others of it's kind that it is no longer able to breed and produce viable offspring. Corect me if I'm wrong, but I believe when a lion and a tiger reproduce (usually in a zoo, because of habitat) not only are the offspring hormonally off balance (they grow to huge sizes, I think) but they are also infertile.

Like a horse and a donkey. You get an infertile mule.

I don't believe the terms species or phyla are inaccurate at all, as they both do their purpose pretty well - dividing animals into anatomically/ developmentally similar groups and then further, into the evolutions of those basic designs.